Mr. A.K. Bhakta, Adv v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Judgment

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: To quash and set aside the impugned Order dated “(i) 01.11.2022 in OA No. 2876/2022 passed by Ld. CAT(PB) New Delhi and Official Impugned Orders No. F.No,C-14011/1/2010-Vig. (Vol-III) Dated 29.08.2022, Memorandum No.- 14011/1/2010- Vig.(Vol-III) Dated 06.02.2020 with Enquiry Report No. ADG I (SZ) (PA)/Inquiry (RKS)/2017 (Vol. IV) Dated 14.06.2019 and Charge Sheet vide Memorandum No. 14011/1/2010-Vig.dated 12.03.2013. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 1 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 Direct the respondents not to withhold 20% of monthly (ii) pension of the petitioner. Allow this Writ Petition with exemplary cost for harassing (iii) the petitioner intentionally without his fault. (iv) Direct the respondents to produce the relevant record before this Hon‟ble Court for proper adjudication in the interest of justice. (v) To pass such further order or orders which this Hon‟ble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and to meet the end of justice.”

2. The facts as noted from the petition are that the petitioner, a retired Senior director (Programmes), Doordarshan, was issued a show cause memorandum dated 07.10.2009, during his tenure, calling upon him to explain alleged irregularities in the processing and approval of the programme titled „KIRAN‟, which reads thus: “(i) The Slotting Committee Meeting held under the Chairmanship of CEO, PB decided on 24.03.2008 that Programme „KIRAN‟ will be given No further Extension beyond 24.06.08. The Producer M/s New & Entertainment Television New Delhi request to DG:DDn for extension of the Programme was rejected in view of the Slotting Committees decision. A letter dated 14.05.08 to this effect was sent to the Producer by the Programme Wing. (ii) Subsequently the Producer again sent a request dated Nil for revival of KIRAN on DD-I. Shri Ramakant, Sr. DP proposed (vide note dated 14.07.09) that the Producer may be asked to submit the processing fee ignoring the fact that AD (Prog) had recommended that it may be decided as per guideline of Sponsoredprogramm Though Mrs. Usha Bhasin, DDG (SP) ordered (vide her note dated 15.07.09) to first decide it as per the guidelines of Sponsored Programme. Despite her observation, the request of the Producer i.e. M/s News & Entertainment Television, New Delhi for reconsideration of their proposal was processed by him & Shri A.M. Rao, ADP. He never pointed out the basic fact that a conscious decision has been taken by the Slotting Committee in 2008 that no further extension should be before awarding the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 2 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 contract. Even DDG (Sponsor Programme) was also involved in the case. (iii) Though this Programme was briefly discussed by the Committee in its meeting dated 14.07.2009 under the chairmanship of Director General, but it should have been submitted to Empowered Committee comprising CEO, M(F) & Director General for approval. As a result the Programme was awarded to the Producer in brazen violation of DD guidelines dated 10.06.04 on Sponsored Programme without approval of the competent authority on 27/08/2009. Though contract to the firm was given w.e.f. 31.08.09, but the Agreement was already signed by him with the Producer on25/08/2009.”

3. The petitioner submitted his written statement on 27.10.2009, denying the alleged misconduct which reads thus: “The reply to the query may be read as under:- i) It is a fact that one slotting committee on 24.03.2008 decided not to give further extension to the programme „Kiran‟. At the same time another slotting committee held on 10.07.2009 and 03.08.2009 decided to resume telecast of the same, the earlier decision and the latest decision were as per the Committee on Programmes for DD-I.

ii) The recommendation of ADP to submit the processing fee was for a programme which may be considered as a RE-START, but the sponsored guidelines are silent on such cases where a programme was stopped for some period and again resumed its telecast. It may be mentioned that earlier also this programme was stopped and resumed its telecast in 2005, where a decision was taken to consider the re-start as a resumption and hence no processing fee was charged (43, 44, 46/n dt. 20.07.2005 of the first file of „KIRAN‟). iii) The allegation that the proposal was processed by Sh. A.M. Rao, and me without pointing out that a conscious decision has been taken by the slotting committee in 2008 is not true. It was already noted by ADP on p-23/n. the entire process was taken up as per guidelines under sponsored category of Doordarshan. DDG (Spon) was always in this processing vide noting on 24.07.2009 and also Dy. Director of Programmes officer in sponsored section was also involved. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 3 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 iv) The guidelines under sponsored category mentions about suo-motto- fresh proposals to be submitted before the empowered committee. Since, the previous programme as mentioned by DG on page 234/c dated 10.08.2009, it was felt not necessary to refer to the empowered committee considering the fact that this was an old programme, the concept & suitability of which was already been approved by the Empowered Committee. is a continuation of v) It may be noted whatever has been done was as per the orders of DG and it was not possible to flout the orders of DG at my level. vi) SO far as the dates of agreement signing and issuing of contract to the firm is concerned , it is to be informed that the first letter to the procedure was issued on 11.08.2009, which was agreed upon by the producer on 17.08.2009 (238/c) and the producer entered into an agreement on 25.08.2009 (256/c). This is to clarify that the issuing of letters of signing agreement has been done as per the previous practice. vii) Hence it is submitted that the undersigned has not done any misconduct or deviated from the DD Guidelines.”

4. It may be noted that the show cause memorandum initially issued to the petitioner was subsequently withdrawn by the Director General, Doordarshan, vide Office Note dated 16.02.2010. Following this, the petitioner retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2010.

5. Subsequently, vide letter dated 11.03.2013, sanction was accorded by the President of India for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 19721. Consequently thereto, a chargesheet dated 12.03.2013 was issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Signature Not Verified 1 Hereinafter “CCS (Pension) Rules” W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 4 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 19652. Article I of the chargesheet reads thus: “ARTICLE-I during Shri R.K. Sharma while functioning as Senior Director of Programmes, Directorate General: Doordarshan (DG:DD), New sponsored Delhi, programme„KIRAN‟ to M/s News & Entertainment Television, New Delhi, for telecast of 130 episodes w.e.f. 31.8.2009 without taking approval of the Competent Authority and in gross violation of the Guidelines dated 20.5.2004 and 10.6.2004 on the Sponsored Programme issued by DG:DD. slotted 2009 By the above act the said Shri R.K. Sharma while working in his capacity as Senior Director of Programmes, DG:DD, New Delhi, did not maintain absolute integrity, failed to show devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i), 3(1) (ii) and 3(1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

6. The petitioner challenged the chargesheet through several representations. However, the enquiry was conducted, and Mr. Srinivasan Ramachandran, ADG, DG, Doordarshan was appointed as Inquiring Authority by Ministry‟s Order dated 27.03.2014.

7. Since no action was forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to institute OA No. 3537/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi3, assailing the initiation of departmental proceedings and impugning the chargesheet dated 12.03.2013.

8. However, the said OA came to be dismissed on merits, wherein the Tribunal held that: Signature Not Verified 2 Hereinafter “CCS(CCA) Rules” 3 Hereinafter “Tribunal” W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 5 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 “10. However, on a close scrutiny, it becomes evident that the charges contained in Annexure A-2, on the one hand, and in Annexure A-16, on the other hand, are totally different. While the one in Annexure A-2 is in relation to extension of the telecast of the serial, the allegation in Annexure A-16 relates to the very allotment of slot to the serial. The question as to whether the allegations contained in Annexure A-16 against the applicant are true, or not, can be decided only in the departmental inquiry. The initiation of the proceedings cannot be found fault with, since the procedure prescribed under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in relation to a retired employee, has been strictly followed. 11. We do not find any basis to interfere with the proceedings challenged in the OA. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

9. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Review Application bearing No. 136/2018 before the Tribunal to review the order dated

29.08.2022. The Review Application was dismissed vide order dated

05.10.2018 which is extracted below: “This Review Application (RA) is filed with a prayer to review the order passed in OA. 2. On repeated queries, the applicant is not able to state as to what is the error or inaccuracy in the order passed in OA. We do not find any basis to entertain this RA. It is, therefore, dismissed. We, however, make it clear that of the applicant makes an application for furnishing of documents in the course of the inquiry, the respondents shall either furnish him or inform him in writing as to why the documents cannot be supplied. The respondents shall also keep in view the principle that if any document is not furnished to the charged officer, it cannot be relied upon in departmental proceedings.”

10. The Enquiry Report was submitted on 14.06.2019, wherein the article of charge was held to be proved.

11. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 28.11.2020 against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, a tentative decision was Signature Not Verified taken to impose a suitable cut in pension and the matter was referred W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 6 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 to the Union Public Service Commission4 for its advice. The UPSC concurred with the proposed punishment, and the President, after due consideration of the Enquiry Report, the advice of the UPSC, and the representation dated 17.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2022 withholding 20% of the petitioner‟s monthly pension for a period of two years.

12. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred OA No. 2876/2022 before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2022. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the departmental proceedings and found no perversity in the decision of the Disciplinary Authority or the procedure adopted. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated

01.11.2022 is reproduced hereinbelow: “15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we do not find any fault with the disciplinary proceedings, which have been conducted as per the laid down norms and rules. The applicant has been given all reasonable opportunities to present his case, following the principles of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority has considered all aspects and decided the quantum of punishment vide the impugned order dated 29.08.2022. We do not find any infirmity and illegality in the action of the respondents. The challenges of the applicant to the charge memorandum, the enquiry report and the impugned order are devoid of merit. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed.

16. Pending MA No. 2934/2022 also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

13. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, assailing the impugned order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the enquiry Signature Not Verified 4 Hereinafter “UPSC” W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 7 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 proceedings culminating in the Enquiry Report dated 14.06.2019, and the consequential order of the Tribunal dated 01.11.2022, whereby his OA was dismissed.

14. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhakta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj, learned SPC for the respondents.

15. Mr. A.K. Bhakta has assailed the impugned orders on multiple grounds, primarily contending as follows: i. ii. The disciplinary proceedings were reinitiated in 2013 based on a show cause memorandum dated 07.10.2009, which had already been withdrawn on 16.02.2010 by the then Director General, Doordarshan. The enquiry was initiated nearly three years after the petitioner‟s retirement, violating the limitation period and established legal norms under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. iii. The enquiry proceedings suffered from grave procedural irregularities, no witnesses were examined, crucial defence documents were denied, the inquiry was conducted by officers unfamiliar with programme procedures, and the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself. It is submitted that the delay of over nine years in concluding the proceedings, without any explanation, violates principles of natural justice and settled law. iv. The petitioner was not provided with essential and crucial Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 8 of 24 documents necessary for his defence, despite repeated Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 requests and directions from the PMO, CVC and Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. v. vi. The chargesheet was approved by the State Minister of Information & Broadcasting, instead of the Cabinet Minister, which is procedurally defective and legally unsustainable. The decision under challenge was taken by a committee of six senior officers, including the DG, DDG, and the petitioner himself, however, only the petitioner was selectively proceeded against, indicating discrimination and victimization. vii. The petitioner had received vigilance clearance before retirement confirming that no inquiry or penalty was pending or contemplated which should preclude reopening of the same issue post-retirement. viii. The Enquiry Officer and presenting officer were from engineering background, unfamiliar with programming matters, and thus lacked competence to assess the issue, leading to misunderstanding of programme functioning. ix. The petitioner, a senior citizen of over 72 years, dependent solely on pension and recently bereaved of his spouse, is facing undue hardship due to the impugned penalty, which is harsh, disproportionate, and contrary to public interest. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate these facts and legal infirmities while dismissing the petitioner‟s case.

16. Per Contra, Mr. Neeraj has opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders by contending as follows: Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 9 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 i. That the departmental proceedings were initiated accordance with law and after obtaining sanction of the President of India under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, since the alleged misconduct came to light during the petitioner‟s tenure in service and involved serious irregularities in violation of prescribed norms; ii. The earlier show cause memorandum dated 07.10.2009, though withdrawn by then Director General on

16.02.2010, was only preliminary in nature and was not based on any formal disciplinary proceeding. The final decision to initiate regular disciplinary proceedings was taken only after full facts were considered and a formal charge sheet was approved and issued on 12.03.2013; iii. The delay in initiation and conduct of inquiry is not fatal in the present case, as the matter involved consideration at multiple levels, including the Ministry and the UPSC. Moreover, no prejudice has been demonstrated by the petitioner as arising from such delay, which, in any event, is partly attributable to the petitioner himself; iv. The petitioner was accorded full opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings and due process was followed in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner participated in the inquiry, submitted a written defence, and was allowed to present his case; v. That the nature of misconduct, involving the processing and revival of a programme in contravention of Slotting Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 10 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 Committee decisions and Doordarshan‟s Sponsored Programme Guidelines, was serious and warranted disciplinary action. The petitioner, being a senior officer, was expected to exercise due diligence and not mechanically follow superior orders; vi. The selection of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer from the engineering stream does not vitiate the proceedings, as both officers were competent under the rules and the petitioner raised no such objection at the appropriate stage; vii. The grant of vigilance clearance at the time of retirement does not preclude initiation of proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, as the disciplinary action was initiated with the sanction of the President, and based on subsequent findings of misconduct recorded after full inquiry; viii. The penalty of withholding 20% of the petitioner‟s pension for a period of two years has been imposed after considering the gravity of the misconduct, the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and the advice of the UPSC. The punishment is limited, reasonable, and does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

17. After considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings and material on record, and the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal, we are unable to come to the aid of the petitioner. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 11 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45

18. At the outset, it is observed that the primary challenge mounted by the petitioner pertains to the legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him post-retirement, particularly with reference to the alleged delay and the withdrawal of an earlier show cause memorandum dated 07.10.2009. It is contended that the said memorandum, having been withdrawn on 16.02.2010, ought to have precluded the issuance of a fresh charge-sheet in 2013. However, this contention fails to withstand scrutiny. The withdrawal of the earlier memorandum was purely administrative in nature and did not amount to a conclusive adjudication on merits. The mere withdrawal of the said memorandum, which had not culminated in any formal inquiry, does not preclude the Disciplinary Authority from initiating appropriate action under the relevant service rules. The subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings, based on a proposal dated

15.02.2010, and duly sanctioned by the President of India under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, was legally competent and procedurally valid.

19. The petitioner further contends that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated on account of delay, both in initiation and conclusion. It is well-settled that while delay is a relevant factor, it is not determinative unless it is shown to have caused demonstrable prejudice to the defence. The test is not the mere passage of time, but whether such delay has rendered the inquiry unfair or oppressive. In the present case, although there was a lapse of time between the framing of the charge-sheet on 12.03.2013 and the passing of the penalty order dated 29.08.2022, the petitioner actively participated in Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 12 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 the inquiry, submitted his written statement, and failed to establish any material prejudice. The delay, in part, was also attributable to the petitioner‟s own conduct, including filing of multiple representations and availing various remedies available under law, filing of the original applications before the Tribunal, which contributed to the protraction of proceedings. Accordingly, this contention is devoid of merit. It is trite that mere bald averments, unsubstantiated by any cogent material or evidence on record, cannot form the basis for vitiating departmental proceedings on the ground of delay. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to place on record any demonstrably evidence to establish to establish that the delay occasioned any real or substantial prejudice to his defence or impaired his ability to effectively participate in the inquiry.

20. In support of his submission that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are vitiated for want of proof of documents, Mr. A.K. Bhakta has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.5 It is contended that mere production of documents is insufficient and that the contents of the documents relied upon in the inquiry must be duly proved by examining witnesses.

21. However, this Court finds the petitioner‟s reliance on the aforesaid judgment to be wholly misplaced in the facts of the present case. The principles enunciated in Roop Singh Negi (supra) are applicable in cases where uncorroborated documentary evidence is Signature Not Verified 5(2009) 2 SCC 570 W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 13 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 relied upon without providing the delinquent officer an opportunity to rebut the same, or where the inquiry stands solely on unproven material. In the present case, the petitioner participated fully in the proceedings, submitted a detailed written defence. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to rebut the documentary material and failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer based on such documents cannot be faulted for want of evidentiary value, and the plea of procedural irregularity raised in this regard is devoid of merit.

22. With respect to the petitioner‟s grievance regarding the alleged denial of crucial defence documents, this Court finds no merit in the said contention. A perusal of the record reveals that the documents sought by the petitioner were neither relied upon nor annexed to the chargesheet, and did not constitute the foundational material for substantiating the article of charges. Moreover, vide communication dated 06.06.2016, it was informed to the petitioner that the competent authority had directed that the original complaint would not be furnished. The documents in question were claimed to be confidential in nature, and the Director General, Doordarshan, the lawful custodian thereof, invoked privilege over the same with the prior approval of the Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati.

23. Mere claim of prejudice, unaccompanied by demonstrable proof of actual prejudice suffered, does not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16528/2022 Page 14 of 24 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:29.05.2025 18:27:45 Harendra Arora6, a delinquent employee must establish how the non- supply of documents materially impaired his defence. In the present case, no such substantiation has been furnished by the petitioner. It is a well-settled position of law, as reaffirmed in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik7, that where privilege is duly claimed over confidential documents and supported by recorded reasons, denial of such documents does not, ipso facto, vitiate the proceedings. The only exception is when mala fides or arbitrariness in such invocation is shown. In the present case no such allegation has been substantiated. In fact, the respondents made reasonable accommodation by offering to provide the petitioner with a reacted version of the relevant vigilance file notings, after concealing the identity of officials and complainants, thereby balancing the petitioner‟s right to defence with institutional confidentiality. We find no illegality or procedural infirmity in the non-supply of the documents in question, nor any prejudice occasioned thereby to the petitioner‟s right.

24. As regards the petitioner‟s plea that the disciplinary proceedings were barred under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the same is factually and legally incorrect. The record discloses that the formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated only thereafter, with the sanction of the President of India, under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

25. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which stipulates as follows: Signature Not Verified